Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch Acceptance Consistency

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>]

Em Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:12:22 +0300
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> escreveu:

> Hi Mauro,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:59:16AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 06 Jun 2019 19:24:35 +0300 James Bottomley escreveu:
> >   
> > > [splitting issues to shorten replies]
> > > On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 17:58 +0200, Greg KH wrote:  
> > >> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:48:36PM +0300, James Bottomley wrote:    
> > >>> This is probably best done as two separate topics
> > >>> 
> > >>> 1) Pull network: The pull depth is effectively how many pulls your
> > >>> tree does before it goes to Linus, so pull depth 0 is sent straight
> > >>> to Linus, pull depth 1 is sent to a maintainer who sends to Linus
> > >>> and so on.  We've previously spent time discussing how increasing
> > >>> the pull depth of the network would reduce the amount of time Linus
> > >>> spends handling pull requests.  However, in the areas I play, like
> > >>> security, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction
> > >>> (encouraging people to go from pull depth 1 to pull depth 0).  If
> > >>> we're deciding to move to a flat tree model, where everything is
> > >>> depth 0, that's fine, I just think we could do with making a formal
> > >>> decision on it so we don't waste energy encouraging greater tree
> > >>> depth.    
> > >> 
> > >> That depth "change" was due to the perceived problems that having a
> > >> deeper pull depth was causing.  To sort that out, Linus asked for
> > >> things to go directly to him.    
> > > 
> > > This seems to go beyond problems with one tree and is becoming a trend.
> > >   
> > >> It seems like the real issue is the problem with that subsystem
> > >> collection point, and the fact that the depth changed is a sign that
> > >> our model works well (i.e. everyone can be routed around.)    
> > > 
> > > I'm not really interested in calling out "problem" maintainers, or
> > > indeed having another "my patch collection method is better than yours"
> > > type discussion.  What I was fishing for is whether the general
> > > impression that greater tree depth is worth striving for is actually
> > > correct, or we should all give up now and simply accept that the
> > > current flat tree is the best we can do, and, indeed is the model that
> > > works best for Linus.  I get the impression this may be the case, but I
> > > think making sure by having an actual discussion among the interested
> > > parties who will be at the kernel summit, would be useful.  
> > 
> > On media, we came from a "depth 1" model, moving toward a "depth 2" level: 
> > 
> > patch author -> media/driver maintainer -> subsystem maintainer -> Linus  
> 
> I'd like to use this opportunity to ask again for pull requests to be
> pulled instead of cherry-picked.

There are other forums for discussing internal media maintainership,
like the weekly meetings we have and our own mailing lists.

Thanks,
Mauro